Only 5 percent of Americans — a strikingly low number for a sitting president’s handling of such a dominant issue — said they most trusted the Bush administration to resolve the war, the poll found. Asked to choose among the administration, Congress and military commanders, 21 percent said they would most trust Congress and 68 percent expressed most trust in military commanders.

I don't think that disparity between the President and Congress means people side more with Congress than the President, because those who side with the President are probably much more likely to put the military first when given those three choices. The President himself continually expresses trust in the military commanders.

Some Democrats took issue with the characterization of General Petraeus as operating free of influence from the administration, suggesting that they would like to diminish his credibility heading into days of intense sparring over how much more time Mr. Bush’s strategy for Iraq should be given.

If so, then the poll demonstrates extremely strong public trust in the President. (Note: I said if.)

Read on in the linked article, and you'll see that Americans also support troop withdrawals and think the war isn't worth fighting. That's what they say when they are asked what they would do if they had to trust themselves with the war. But do people have a confidence in those opinions about military strategy that displaces the 68% trust in the military leadership?

Overall Assessment: “The military objectives of the surge are in large measure being met.”

Most Important Development: The rejection of Al Qaeda by Sunni tribes in Anbar province. Other areas are following suit, he adds.

End of Surge: The troop levels in Iraq can return to pre-surge levels by the Summer of 2008, he said. “However, in my professional judgment, it would be premature to make recommendations on the pace of such reductions at this time,” he added.

Violence: A slew of charts reports that violence is dropping in Baghdad and other parts of Iraq. The general says the number of attacks and deaths would be lower without Al Qaeda in Iraq’s attacks. One chart shows that two provinces have seen increasing violence during the surge.

Al Qaeda in Iraq: The deals with Sunnis in Anbar province and operations against leaders of Al Qaeda in Iraq have left the group “off balance,” but not defeated, he asserted.

Iran: The general said there is evidence that the Iranian government is using its Al Quds force to help spur the insurgency in Iraq, a charge that the U.S. military has leveled before. The aim, he said, was to create a friendly organization in Iraq as Iran has in Lebanon with Hezbollah.

54 comments:

Americans trust the military commanders much more than either the President or Congress to deal with the war:

I would think anyone with a half a brain would tend to rely more on the military commanders, those doing the work, to handle the war in a more efficent manner than several hundred politicians back home, half of which don't want to see success in any event.

American support for a withdrawal is less due to the casulaty count but rather because they don't think the Iraqis are worth the price. Its one thing to fight a war of retribution (WW2)in which we lost almost 400,000 dead and over a million wounded versus one that has been branded as a war of liberation and nation building.

I think it's likely that Petraeus operates without a lot of interference from the President (from the Vice President? I'm not so sure). GWB does not strike me as a micromanaging despot who always gets in the way of his managers -- I don't think he's that type of executive.

But I also thinks Petraeus understands that Bush does not want to have to solve the mess in Iraq that he (Bush) created.

Count me among those who trust the military more in the present circumstances; but that reflects my lack of confidence in the current occupant of the institution who should be responsible for the decision.

If we are going to fight an effective counter-insurgency, our politial leaders better start preparing us for 5 to 10 more years of significant involvement in Iraq. If the American people don't sign on to that and if the counter-insurgency does take that long, then there will a political price paid by all the institutions that participated in pushing it.

Military commanders are like any other profession. Some are brilliant, some are failures. Military leaders are often failures because they are either too cautious at the wrong time; too aggressive at the wrong time; or just plain unlucky.

You can fault Bush for going with failed military commanders (i.e. Casey) for too long. However, it appears that he got it right with Petraeus.

It's too bad that the liberal media has taken it upon themselves to slime Petraeus. But it isn't the first time. The press also slimed Washington, Grant, etc...

"Interesting" NYT articles, Althouse. I see you are still reading that rag. The first basically emphasizes 3 negative factors:

1. There is uncertainty regarding Iraq. (Duh.)2. There will be troop drawdowns beginning soon in key outlying areas.3. The major political issues are showing no progress, as in:

"Efforts at political reconciliation have been stymied at the national level, but American officials still hope to see some modest progress."

which begins with a false assertion. Note too absolutely no mention of size, growth or capabilities - current and projected - of Iraqi forces and how that plays into the total forces equation.

And there is no meaningful poll. There is only the NYT interpretation of the poll conducted by (TAADAA) - the NYT. Conspicuously absent are the specific questions asked and the makeup of the respondents. To say that the "poll" is likely to be self-serving insofar as NYT political leanings are concerned would be a huge understatement.

You can fault Bush for going with failed military commanders (i.e. Casey) for too long. However, it appears that he got it right with Petraeus.

It's too bad that the liberal media has taken it upon themselves to slime Petraeus.

Sloanasaurus has this exactly right, at least imo, my DoD insider take. The media negative saturation over the years has affected public opinion and finally weighed down most of our optimism or confidence.

What the irresponsible, insanely short-sighted partisan media don't do is give us the real projections of what will come were we to withdraw from Iraq with anything less than an internationally perceived victory, a strategic long-term alliance and basing in Iraq and environs, and real progress toward stabilization that will keep on.

I'm going to make sweeping generalizations below without providing much in the way or rationales, so I expect a lot of snarky responses.

1. Rumsfeld was "pro-transformation" e.g. we don't need soliders, our next Army will be high tech and operate inside the other guys decision loop. soldiers are just mouths to feed. send a UAV and a smart bomb instead.2. Casey was a Rumsfeld guy3. Shinseki was the Army CSA and knew that you needed boots on the ground for those unsexy dirty jobs.4. Petraeus is more a Shinseki guy than a Casey guy. a realist.

5. when Rumsfeld and casey were in charge the Dems said "listen to the generals, we don't have enough troops"6. Bush listened and got new leaders. at his confirmation, Petraeus told them what he was gonna do, went and did it and now is gonna come back and say its working, so give me more time7. he was nearly confirmed without a no vote8. now the dems don't like what he is saying, so they want to recast Petraeus as a creature of Bush. 9. Listen to OBL, he says that Iraq is the main front in the war he declared. 10. OBL wants us gone. If he thought HE was winning, he'd encourage us to stay, he isnt winning, we are. Congress don't surrender.

If he doesn't micromanage, and instead gives his managers the responsibility, wouldn't that mean that they created the mess?

Not necessarily. If you take the position that Iraq was a mistake from day one, no matter how it was managed doesn't erase the mistake. The President sets policy in war and then it is up to the military to carry it out. I think there was probably more micromanagement in this war, specifically in ROE than we might think. As I understand it decisions on disbanding the Iraqi army and reconstruction were decisions made at the civilian level Bremer, et al.

On the other hand, our military operations have been successful (Fallujah and the current surge). When it comes to the the mess that is Iraq, I'll lay a lot of blame on the Iraqis themselves as well. I'm not going to start blaming our military for failing to make a shit sandwhich taste good.

Grilling and criticizing Petraeus at this time is like calling in Eisenhower in the middle of the Battle of the Bulge and grilling him and criticizing him for being taken by surprise while trying to fight back.

I don't know that I'd call Petraeus a Shinseki guy. Shinseki was a Rumsfeld style "transformation" type up until he needed to change his tune in order to disagree publicly with his commander in chief.

Shinseki was a political general who got his appointment under the previous Administration because he had all the right politically correct opinions about how the military ought to operate, including downsizing our traditional heavy forces in favor of lighter, medium weight, fast strike forces; expansion of women in the military, including using affirmative action to meet quotas; and the thing I most despise him for, though likely the most minor thing he did; giving Ranger berets to the entire Army, under the theory that "Rangers are high speed. Rangers wear black berets. If we give black berets to the rest of the Army, they'll be high speed too."

Shinseki gets a lot of mileage out of his claiming you'd need a half million troops to take Iraq (IIRC, and I could be wrong, but I believe he was referring to conquering, not occupying afterwards-which would make him completely wrong), but I've always gotten the impression that this was his way of saying "we can't do this, so let's not even try."

And lets remember that Shinseki agreed with much of the drawdown of the Army in the 90's that has made occupying Iraq so difficult now.

All of this is not to defend Rumsfeld. I just really don't like Eric Shinseki.

Grilling and criticizing Petraeus at this time is like calling in Eisenhower in the middle of the Battle of the Bulge and grilling him and criticizing him for being taken by surprise while trying to fight back

Well by today's standards, Ike would probably been cashiered for allowing it to happen in the first place. At that point in the war, intel had the German army pretty much beat on the Western front. Yet somehow they were able to muster some 700,000 troops, get them in position right on the German-Belgian border without us having a clue despite complete air supremacy and by the time it was all said and done, cost us some 80,000 casulaties.

The kicker is the Battle of the Bulge is heralded as a great victory yet 22 years later, the NVA and VC launched a similar style offensive during the Tet holiday, which we crushed like the Germans yet that is viewed as a defeat with even Cronkite saying the war is unwinnable.

Though I don't disagree on your Shinseki assessment, we're likely to be headed toward a fight over berets :)

the thing I most despise him for, though likely the most minor thing he did; giving Ranger berets to the entire Army, under the theory that "Rangers are high speed. Rangers wear black berets. If we give black berets to the rest of the Army, they'll be high speed too."

I'm an Armor Officer as a caveat.

world-wide, black berets are generally worn by either armor troops or parachutists.

starting in 1973, Armor troops in the US Army started wearing black berets, aligning themselves with a tradition from the 1920's in the British Armored Corps.

at that time, there were no Ranger Regiments, and the SF wore Green Berets and the Airborne wore Maroon Berets.

So when in 1975 Ranger Regiments were reactived, they made the decision to wear the Black Beret that I was wearing at that time in my tank battalion. I didn't complain. an infantryman took our black berets away (Bernie Rogers) in 1979, then the decision was reversed for only the Rangers in 1980. Shinseki changed the decision again. It's a command decision.

As I know you know, throughout history, there aren't many wars in which the ultimate winner lost no battles; often losses to the ultimate winner were significant and sometimes devastating.

Without a doubt. Look at the horrendous losses we suffered just at Iwo: 16,000 dead in a hair over a month over a 6 sq mile strip of island.

Probably, though, if they were in power, those expectations would change, donchathink?

Well in all fairness, they would not have had us in Iraq to begin with. But therein lies the point. It's not thier war, not in their name so whether it was 3000 dead or 3, the mantra would be the same thing.

Not to sound like a broken record on this but Clinton essentially did the same thing with Serbia. We bombed a sovereign nation which was no imminent threat to us, no Congressional or UN approval with no loss of life on our end all of which ended in regime change from Milosovec to someone less bloodthirsty. Other than your token protestors, no one really said boo over it.

But when its thier boy running the show, its different. So if its the body count thats one thing but the whole illegal/immoral war mantra gets wearisome.

Having served in the Marine Corps, I can tell you what kind of man Petraeus is: he is akin to Hector, Achilles and Agamemnon. Our sorry Senators aren't worthy to even polish his boots. Say what you will about Bush, call him an idiot whatever, but if Petraeus says we are suceeding and need 6 more months, let him have it.

Sal, here is the wiki entry, googled using "black beret"The black beret is the headgear worn by the British Army's Royal Tank Regiment (RTR), The Canadian Armed Forces's Royal Canadian Armoured Corps (RCAC), The Australian Army's Royal Australian Armoured Corps (RAAC) and by all the Russian Naval Infantry (and formerly Soviet) and some Russian Spetsnaz units, the United States Air Force (USAF) Tactical Air Control Party (TACP) members, among others. Black berets are also worn over hoods by members of ETA.

In the United States military it was officially worn and associated with the United States Army Rangers. However, it is now worn by all United States Army troops unless the soldier is approved to wear a different distinctive beret. The Rangers now wear tan berets, a homage to the buckskins worn by Rogers' Rangers. Unofficially, it was also donned by members of the US armor units in the past.

The most famous wearer of the beret was Field Marshal Montgomery, who wore an RTR beret complete with badge which had been presented to him by the RTR, to which he added his own General's (later Field Marshal's) cap badge.

[edit] Usage around the worldIn the German Army, the black beret is worn by the Armoured Corps and the Army Reconnaissance Corps.

In the Spanish Army, the black beret is worn by the Parachutist brigade.

In the Belgian Army, black berets are worn by armoured and engineer troops.

In the Dutch Army the cavalry battalions wear black berets.

In the pre-2003 Iraq Army, the black beret was the most commonly worn head gear and continues to be worn by both army and police personnel of the new occupation regime.

In the Pakistan Army, the Armoured Corps wears black berets. In the Spanish Army, the black beret is distinctive of armoured and para troops

The Swedish armour and mechanized troops wear black berets.

In the Irish Army the majority of the members of the Permanent Defence Forces wear black berets except for certain combat support units such as MP's, Cavalry etc.

Members of Serbian Military Police wear black berets.

The Finnish Panssarijääkäri (panzerjaegers) and members of the Armored Brigade also wear black berets.

Tactical Air Control Party members of the United States Air Force wear black berets with a flash and crest design.

The Brazilian armour and mechanized troops also wear the black beret.

The Argentine Navy's Batallón de Infantería de Marina 5 (5th Marine Battalion), of Falklands War Mount Tumbledown fame (1982), wears a black beret. This was introduced by (then) Commander Manuel Tomé around 1977, and the beret was awarded on completion of a Cold Weather and Mountain Warfare Course. Today, all units of the Southern Marine Force of the Argentine Marine Corps wear black berets with unit badges.

In the Canadian Army, black berets are worn by armoured troops.

In the Greek Army, black berets are worn by the Armoured branch.

In the Italian Army most units wear a black beret. Exceptions are: Paratroopers, Alpini, Army Aviation Corps (AVES) and Bersaglieri.

In the Indonesian Army, black beret is worn by the members of Cavalry.

Fen said..."....if Petraeus says we are suceeding and need 6 more months, let him have it."

Oh, okay.

He also said this:

Petraeus Falsely Claims That Six Months Ago, ‘No One Would Have Forecast’ Anbar’s SuccessToday in his testimony to the House, Gen. David Petraeus said: “no one would have dared to forecast that Anbar Province would have been transformed the way it has in the past 6 months“:

"When I testified in January, for example, no one would have dared to forecast that Anbar Province would have been transformed the way it has in the past 6 months."

NOT REALLY:

In testimony to the Senate Armed Services Commitee six months ago — just two weeks after Bush first announced his escalation plans — Petraeus admitted that in Anbar, there already appeared “to be a trend in the positive direction where sheikhs are stepping up”:

"You’ve seen it, I know, in Anbar province, where it has sort of gone back and forth. And right now there appears to be a trend in the positive direction where sheikhs are stepping up and they do want to be affiliated with and supported by the U.S. Marines and Army forces who are in Anbar province."

vnjagvet said..."Grilling and criticizing Petraeus at this time is like calling in Eisenhower in the middle of the Battle of the Bulge and grilling him and criticizing him for being taken by surprise while trying to fight back."

That's ridiculous.

There have been a number of Generals already "grilled" before Congress in the last few years.

Unfortunately the ones who didn't follow the party line were fired or suddenly "retired."

1. He will not point out that overall civilian deaths in all of Iraq are increasing; civilian deaths in August were 1809, up by 49 compared to July's 1760 deaths.

2. He won't point out that May was the deadliest month in 2007, with over 1900 civilian deaths.

3. He won't tell us that the Pentagon's estimate of sectarian deaths does not include Shi'a on Shi'a violence, Sunni on Sunni violence, car bombings or people being shot in the head from in front.

4. He won't admit that the drop in violence in Baghdad has more to do with population displacement than the surge. Before the war, Baghdad had a 65 percent Sunni majority. It is now 75 percent Shi'a. More than half of all Baghdad's neighborhoods are now Shi'a dominated as compared to a handful just a year ago.

5. He won't tell us that, since the surge began, the number of internally displaced persons in Iraq has doubled to 1.1 million, 200,000 of whom are in Baghdad alone.

6. He won't tell us that every month in 2007 has seen more American casualties than the same month in 2006.

7. He won't tell us that since the surge began more than 800 American servicemen have died.

8. He won't tell us that 70 percent of Iraqi's lack adequate water supplies, compared to 50 percent before the invasion.

9. He won't tell us that nearly 30 percent of Iraqi children are malnourished.

10. He won't tell us that Iraq is meeting only 50 percent of its electrical demand.

But I also thinks Petraeus understands that Bush does not want to have to solve the mess in Iraq that he (Bush) created.

That makes no sense at all. If Bush thinks Iraq is a "mess" that needs "solving", why on EARTH would he want to leave that mess for someone else to clean up?

Either the person to solve it will be a Democrat (in which case the entire Republican Party takes a hit to its defense credentials), or a Republican (in which case history will list Bush as an inferior Republican, like Nixon), or nobody at all (in which case Bush goes down in history as the guy who got us into an unending mess).

So no, the notion that Bush doesn't *want* to resolve the situation in Iraq is retarded. Obviously he wants the Iraq situation resolved. It just isn't realistic to think that it can or will be resolved on a schedule that's convenient for the 2008 elections.

Revenant -- About a year ago, I think (give or take some months), Bush did an interview and he admitted that the Iraq clean-up would be after his administration ended (That's my recollection and reinterpretation of his comments -- he didn't say it quite that way). I don't think he has any intention of trying to get things fixed/setting things right before he leaves office.

1. He will not point out that overall civilian deaths in all of Iraq are increasing; civilian deaths in August were 1809, up by 49 compared to July's 1760 deaths.

2. He won't point out that May was the deadliest month in 2007, with over 1900 civilian deaths.

3. He won't tell us that the Pentagon's estimate of sectarian deaths does not include Shi'a on Shi'a violence, Sunni on Sunni violence, car bombings or people being shot in the head from in front.

4. He won't admit that the drop in violence in Baghdad has more to do with population displacement than the surge. Before the war, Baghdad had a 65 percent Sunni majority. It is now 75 percent Shi'a. More than half of all Baghdad's neighborhoods are now Shi'a dominated as compared to a handful just a year ago.

5. He won't tell us that, since the surge began, the number of internally displaced persons in Iraq has doubled to 1.1 million, 200,000 of whom are in Baghdad alone.

6. He won't tell us that every month in 2007 has seen more American casualties than the same month in 2006.

7. He won't tell us that since the surge began more than 800 American servicemen have died.

8. He won't tell us that 70 percent of Iraqi's lack adequate water supplies, compared to 50 percent before the invasion.

9. He won't tell us that nearly 30 percent of Iraqi children are malnourished.

10. He won't tell us that Iraq is meeting only 50 percent of its electrical demand.

You can't answer my questions about future consequences of a withdrawal next year, can you? Because all that matters is whining about the past and current problems and never making a positive difference in the long campaign against terrorism and our national security.

You only offer complaining and demoralization, a warped perspective that isn't the least bit grounded in sound knowledge or logic.

Emote, cite deaths and call people names. By your thinking, only of-age people who serve can have an opinion on this war in our country ruled by civilian authority. Brilliant. So shut up, unless you're over there. Are you?

jane,Do you ever actually read books or newspapers or periodicals? Bush said we were going into Iraq to establish a democracy.

Do you remember Petraus even mentioning democracy today??

It's all politics now and you owe the f'amilies of the fallen an apology for voting this idiot into office and continuing to support an insane policy.

The bullshit "if you're not with us you're against us" or "if you don't support Bush you're un-American" is old news and America isn't ring buying the right wing lies anymore. (70% of them...so where does that put morons like YOU??)

You're just another right wing weasel who can't bring themselves to admit they were wrong then...and wrong now.

This is kindergarten stuff and you and Lucky are in the back of the class acting up because you don't understand the numbers your teach is explaining. I wasn't asked "very specific questions" by LOS (6:39PM) until AFTER Lucky Loser was asked very specific questions by me (6:28PM). The backward looking inane points- not questions (5:48PM)- he posed earlier on were to just ANYBODY-- I was not even hinted at as being the one to address them.

Read, hdhouse. Read. You and lefty Lucky need to practice reading for comprehension. And practice counting on your fingers and toes to grasp the concept of numbers better. Here's a hint: 6:28 comes BEFORE 6:39.

And lefty Lucky didn't answer a single one of my questions WHICH CAME FIRST. What is it with you guys-- do you think you don't have to answer questions put to you by a woman, or is it that you were both born into a class that ignores others except for their needing to jump to your commands?